Judgments - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
MANGU Vs. DHARMENDRA & ANR.
MAYA DEVI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
Special Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory. The only point of relevance at present is whether the accused has been denied right of defence or not. In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and Full Judgment
RAM SUNDER SEN Vs. NARENDRA @ BODE SINGH PATEL & ANR.
It is a settled law that when prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the following tests to be clearly established: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent Full Judgment
PRAVEEN KUMAR SAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION & ANR. Vs GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
KAMAL CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs. NITIN GUNWANT SHAH
This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said Full Judgment
BHANUBEN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Full Judgment
NIZAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt Full Judgment
LATE PREM RAJ CHAUDHARY THR LEGAL HEIRS Vs BABU RAM & ORS
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS Vs. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR AND ORS
V.K.MISHRA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved and ask question with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in Section 162 Cr.P.C. “if duly proved” clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they Full Judgment
JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. NARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS
14. As would be evident from the contents of Section 63 of the Act that to execute the Will as contemplated therein, the testator would have to sign or affix his mark to it or the same has to be signed by some other person in his presence and on his direction. Further the signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him has to be so Full Judgment